![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 127 to 151 of 197. Go back in thread:
Posted by gardenergirl on June 16, 2005, at 23:10:21
In reply to Re: How to follow the harassment policy » TofuEmmy, posted by AMD on June 16, 2005, at 16:23:53
I know that your concerns about the situation were very important to you. I respect that your feelings are your own, and reflect your own truth. And I think you are entitled to have them, free and clear, just as they are.
(((emmy)))
gg
Posted by verne on June 17, 2005, at 0:16:39
In reply to Re: How to follow the harassment policy, posted by Larry Hoover on June 13, 2005, at 7:46:18
Lar,
I just wanted to say I was shocked and dismayed that you were blocked over a creative and broad interpretation of the DNP rule. You are one of the reasons I check back to this site from time to time.
I would get myself blocked as a gesture of solidarity but I'm too dumbstruck to think of a way to do it. Perhaps, I'll just stay away - that won't be hard.
I'm so sick of the administrative games at this site. I don't think it does my health - emotional or otherwise - any good.
Have a nice vacation.
Verne
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 17, 2005, at 0:20:43
In reply to (((emmy))), posted by gardenergirl on June 16, 2005, at 23:10:21
The right to ask someone Not To Post to them is part of Babble, Emmy implemented it, and expected it to be enforced.
No one but Emmy and Lar know what brought this about. Emmy had every right to have her wishes respected, *without* having people question it on the board, or speculate about the situation. And Larry himeself had the right to expect reasonable, fair, treatment.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 17, 2005, at 0:22:48
In reply to Re: (((emmy))) » gardenergirl, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 17, 2005, at 0:20:43
Posted by TofuEmmy on June 17, 2005, at 8:19:42
In reply to Re: (((emmy))) » gardenergirl, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 17, 2005, at 0:20:43
Thank you both for your kindness and understanding. em
Posted by TamaraJ on June 17, 2005, at 14:45:14
In reply to Re: I formally request that Lar's block be reduced » Dinah, posted by TamaraJ on June 15, 2005, at 11:05:43
Have you had a chance to consider this request, which is supported by a number of posters? I think it would do a lot for morale if the request was considered and addressed. Thanks so much.
Tamara
Posted by Jai Narayan on June 17, 2005, at 16:46:19
In reply to Dumbstruck » Larry Hoover, posted by verne on June 17, 2005, at 0:16:39
I have been thinking about you.
your wonderful humor has been missed by me.
Jai
Posted by Jai Narayan on June 17, 2005, at 16:51:45
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » Jai Narayan, posted by AMD on June 16, 2005, at 15:50:27
" You have changed the topic of debate and violated the rules of argument."
okay, I have to toughen up my argument skin...
I'm taking a brush to my epidermis as we speak!
Jai from the thin skinned DNA group
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 17, 2005, at 17:11:24
In reply to ouch...ouch... ouch..., posted by Jai Narayan on June 17, 2005, at 16:51:45
> " You have changed the topic of debate and violated the rules of argument."
Oh Jai, you bad egg!
Imagine, violating the sacred rules of argument! What's next on your subversive agenda?
Posted by Jakeman on June 17, 2005, at 20:39:32
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks - Miscarriage of Justice!! » Dr. Bob, posted by TamaraJ on June 14, 2005, at 9:45:37
How about it Dr. Bob?
There are vital contributors to this board, the ones who selflessly offer expert advice and give suffering people help. Not to minimize other people's contributions, all are helpful. Lately several posters have stated that they are fed up and leaving. Let's keep a good thing going.
warm regards, Jake
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 17, 2005, at 23:41:13
In reply to Re: Explanation » Dinah, posted by AMD on June 16, 2005, at 14:23:31
> The fact that the forum is run as a dictatorship ... is disgusting.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused.
> I bet I risk a ban by expressing this /opinion/.
>
> I find it patently offensive that I can't say what I want without one of the administrators jumping on my back.You win that bet. Different opinions are fine, and in fact encouraged, but your freedom of speech is limited here. I've asked you to be civil before, so now I'm going to block you from posting for a week.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2005, at 0:36:34
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks, reconsideration is needed » TamaraJ, posted by Jakeman on June 17, 2005, at 20:39:32
> Have you had a chance to consider this request, which is supported by a number of posters? I think it would do a lot for morale if the request was considered and addressed.
>
> TamaraJFirst, I think it's great that Larry's receiving a lot of support. And I agree, it would be great to have him back. I've considered this request. But I don't think I should unblock people just because they're popular.
--
> Lately several posters have stated that they are fed up and leaving. Let's keep a good thing going.
>
> JakeI'm going to try. And I hope others do, too. Even if they feel fed up sometimes.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on June 18, 2005, at 0:43:44
In reply to Re: reconsideration, posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2005, at 0:36:34
I'm not asking you to reconsider because he's popular. I'm asking you to reconsider because his previous blockings had nothing to do with DNP's. And because I think he misunderstood the current application of the DNP rule.
I'm not suggesting that you unblock him. I'm just suggesting that under the circumstances, six weeks may be excessive.
I was actually going to suggest that you add a permutation to the blocking rules about violations that have nothing to do with prior ones. So that mentioning a how to get an illegal medication, for example, wouldn't be automatically double a block for being rude to a poster.
Because the reason behind the increase in block length is because people should learn what is acceptable over time, right? But people could learn about one rule without necessarily learning about another.
I think Lar genuinely didn't understand the DNP rules as they stand now, and should receive a block length commensurate with that. Which would be one week.
That's my argument. Not that he should be unblocked because he's popular.
Posted by chemist on June 18, 2005, at 2:00:41
In reply to Re: reconsideration, posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2005, at 0:36:34
> > Have you had a chance to consider this request, which is supported by a number of posters? I think it would do a lot for morale if the request was considered and addressed.
> >
> > TamaraJ
>
> First, I think it's great that Larry's receiving a lot of support. And I agree, it would be great to have him back. I've considered this request. But I don't think I should unblock people just because they're popular.
>
> --
>
> > Lately several posters have stated that they are fed up and leaving. Let's keep a good thing going.
> >
> > Jake
>
> I'm going to try. And I hope others do, too. Even if they feel fed up sometimes.
>
> Bobhello there, chemist here...far be it from me to wax administrative in re: good graces for blocked posters...yet - as noted by (at least) Dinah - Larry Hoover possesses an encyclopaedic knowledge of things germane to those who frequent the PB, Alternative, and Substance Use boards (i target these three because the posts are, in my estimation, mainly the sort requiring a factual answer about a compound)...
having been the subject of one - and, curiously (to me), only one ``do not post to me'' request - i am in the dark about the whole business, inclusive of whether LH comprehends the vagaries of the rules pertaining to the procedure: i go straight to jail without collecting $200 and/or passing ``go'' every time and the ``DNP'' to-and-fro is not invoked. easier for all parties, methinks...
enough about all that, myself, and rules: can LH and Dr. RH - perhaps in consult with TE (?) - expedite a speedier return than 1 august? if LH is perceived as popular, goody for him: blame the crowd and not the crooner. he dishes information few others can unearth and explain with clarity, is on the job around the clock, and has a dam named after him. i rest my case...
yours, tjm
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2005, at 2:21:42
In reply to Re: reconsideration » Dr. Bob, posted by chemist on June 18, 2005, at 2:00:41
> can LH and Dr. RH - perhaps in consult with TE (?) - expedite a speedier return than 1 august?
Anything's possible, but who's TE (?)?
Bob
Posted by chemist on June 18, 2005, at 2:25:03
In reply to Re: reconsideration, posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2005, at 2:21:42
> > can LH and Dr. RH - perhaps in consult with TE (?) - expedite a speedier return than 1 august?
>
> Anything's possible, but who's TE (?)?
>
> Bobapologies...TofuEmmy == TE in above...best, tjm
Posted by TamaraJ on June 18, 2005, at 8:45:26
In reply to Re: reconsideration, posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2005, at 2:21:42
and chemist said.
Nobody expects you to reverse your decision to block, just that you reconsider the length of the block, in light of the circumstances. It is not about Larry being popular, although I would be remiss if I did not say that he is that, and he is extremely supportive and caring - everything that Babble is about. You are being asked to reconsider the length of the block because, as Dinah has said, he misunderstood the application of the DNP rule. And, Dr. Bob, it was apparent, to me at least, from posts in this thread alone that, perhaps, others have also misunderstood its application.
Thanks, Dr. Bob, for taking the time to give this request due consideration. You're a peach :-)
Tamara
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2005, at 13:18:48
In reply to Re: reconsideration - I second (third?) what Dinah » Dr. Bob, posted by TamaraJ on June 18, 2005, at 8:45:26
> You are being asked to reconsider the length of the block because, as Dinah has said, he misunderstood the application of the DNP rule.
Right, I didn't mean to oversimplify, and I understand the above may be another factor. I'm working on sorting it out. Thanks for your patience,
Bob
Posted by 10derHeart on June 18, 2005, at 23:27:52
In reply to Re: reconsideration, posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2005, at 13:18:48
>... I understand the above may be another factor. I'm working on sorting it out. Thanks for your patience,
>
> BobThanks for that. Whatever your final decision, I think I speak for several others, at least, in saying that's all we ask, and we appreciate the effort :-)
Posted by justyourlaugh on June 19, 2005, at 21:29:11
In reply to Re: reconsideration » Dr. Bob, posted by 10derHeart on June 18, 2005, at 23:27:52
how would you feel if your block was not noticed?
if you were not a popular poster?
if exceptions were made for others,, not for you because you didnt stand in the circle?
please concider an "unblock" would upset the balance of justice..
j
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 19, 2005, at 22:12:24
In reply to just a thought..., posted by justyourlaugh on June 19, 2005, at 21:29:11
Well, In this case I think the length of the block was unfair. I do understand your point though, I think it should be lifted because it was unfair, not because, as several people mentioned, Larry contributes so much to the board.
Posted by gardenergirl on June 19, 2005, at 22:29:57
In reply to Re: just a thought... » justyourlaugh, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 19, 2005, at 22:12:24
Posted by 10derHeart on June 19, 2005, at 22:31:00
In reply to Re: just a thought... » justyourlaugh, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 19, 2005, at 22:12:24
Yes, to clarify, I agree with Gabbi. I'd like to think I would be asking for this for any poster blocked for 6 weeks under these same circumstances.
It just strikes me in my gut as too harsh, looking at all the surrounding stuff - at least what I'm aware of... It's a combnation of the potential misunderstanding leading to the block and the length that troubles me, not about what Larry does or doesn't contribute.
Posted by verne on June 20, 2005, at 4:34:51
In reply to verne verne vernie....I have missed your humor..., posted by Jai Narayan on June 17, 2005, at 16:46:19
Thanks, Jai, for the kind words. I'm in alot of emotional pain dealing with the injustice and cruelty in the world. It seems limitless. Lately, I think of Shapelle Corby.
Yet we don't need to go to a Bali prison to find cruelty. I think Dr Bob derives a sadistic pleasure in his game of blocks. It's his hobby, study, and passion - much to the detriment of participants at his drbob.org site.
Examine the history of his site and you will see a preoccupation with punishment that forsakes, and exceeds, any semblance of purpose. Reason has been overshadowed by Dr Bob's pursuit of sadistic pleasure in punishing others with his system of blocks.
His narcissistic chamber of fun reminds me of greedy enron execs and their sickening excesses. Petty, small souls, with too much power.
Who would suggest that the PsychoBabble site is a benevolent place for therapy or mutual support?
No, it's a studied nightmare that lost touch with any sort of original purpose and became Dr Bob's "hunting ground".
Who remembers what the site is for, but all remember the "blocks".
Verne
Posted by Ron Hill on June 20, 2005, at 14:40:31
In reply to Re: reconsideration, posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2005, at 13:18:48
> > You are being asked to reconsider the length of the block because, as Dinah has said, he misunderstood the application of the DNP rule.
>
> Right, I didn't mean to oversimplify, and I understand the above may be another factor. I'm working on sorting it out. Thanks for your patience,
>
> Bob
------------
Dr. Bob,Thank you for taking time to reconsider. In trying to sort it out, please take time to scan through the April Fool's Day thread which starts here:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050330/msgs/478484.html
Then compare the circumstances surrounding the original DNP request in the April Fool's Day thread to the posted PB guidelines which set forth the criteria under which a DNP can be issued. The PB DNP guidelines are posted here:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#harassed
I respectfully add my voice to the throng of PB participants asking you to reduce the duration of this block given the unusual and extenuating circumstances. Clearly, there are substantial amounts of gray in this one and, as such, it does not fall into the same category as the more commonplace type of block.
Thanks.
-- Ron
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.